In addition to debuting new AdSense capabilities for smartphones, Google has quietly inserted advertisements next to search results in the iPhone OS 3.1 Maps application.

Ads show up in iPhone Maps searches

Sponsored listings now appear in both map view and list view after a user performs a local search in the Maps app. The addition, first discovered by PM Digital, represents the first time advertisements have appeared in a pre-installed iPhone application, other than the App Store.

In map view, the ads are distinguished from the normal results -- marked with a red pushpin -- with special flags characterized by small logos. In list view, the ads appear at the bottom. For example, a search for department stores in Chicago returns a number of red pushpins along with a generic yellow storefront logo representing the ad.

If the user taps the sponsored link, the familiar screen containing a phone number, address, and directions appears along with some brief, italicized ad copy printed under the name of the business.

AppleInsider also found ads in San Francisco and New York in a brief test, but not every search returned ads.

AdSense for smartphones announced

On Monday, Google announced that its AdSense for Mobile advertising service has been optimized for smartphones like the iPhone. In a post to its official blog, the company noted that 177 million smartphones are predicted to sell in 2009, meaning mobile access to the Internet is a significantly growing market.

"This feature offers publishers the ability to run larger AdSense ads visible on high-end phones," Google said of its newly optimized offering. "Before this launch, AdSense mobile publishers were only eligible to serve smaller text and image ads on their website content."

The system works based on a JavaScript code that sites can implement for their mobile sites. The modified AdSense listing is optimized for mobile phones to reduce latency and will allow various sizes.

Larger AdSense ads are also enabled by default, as Google detects whether the user is browsing with a high-end smartphone.

I read it 2 hours ago at lunch - thought I missed it here. We shall see it soon, I predict! (the biggest news of the day, so far)

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

Same question here- must be the whole map/android/competition thing.
I also am curious how AT&T, at least for here,let this one get by.

A handful of inline ads are evil?
Google still needs to make money, Maps on the iPhone (as it was) takes their bandwidth and earns them zip.

Do you have a source on this? I doubt the use of Google Maps on the iPhone, with a customized presentation, is something Google went along with just for kicks and giggles, that discussion of money did not take place, or even that no money exchanged hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland

Show me the "do-no-evil contract" and then I'll pay the slightest bit of attention to that statement.

Given that GUI elements (such as special coloring in list view) are tied to this in the Maps app, I imagine this was already discussed between Apple and Google and it is happening with Apple's knowledge. I'm not an app developer so my assumptions about programming on the platform could be incorrect, but the alternativesGoogle intentionally undermining Apple, or Google slipping up and allowing a feature onto the platform that wasn't meant to beseem much less likely (especially the former of the two).

Not evil. Just annoying.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

...wonder what percentage of people actually look at the ads and say "Yeah i want to look at that further"?

The user did search on Department Store so presumably the link to Kohls would have been on the map anyway, they just enhanced the icon. So yes, the percentage of people interested would be pretty high since it is a targeted ad.

You'd be surprised I'd say. Though that gives Google no excuse for ruining the Map view experience.

I am surprised that you think a simple icon differentiation in the map 'ruins' the map view 'experience'. How costly is that little icon, really? How does it substantively alter your 'experience' of the UI? Seems like much ado about nothing to me, and I am a UI designer.

In the end it is about revenue and sustainability. How much do you think Apple paid Google for the inclusion of Google Maps on the phone? Anything? Do they pay monthly for the cost incurred by Google for maintaining and operating the servers that drive the experience you refer to? I'm not asking it to be harsh, I just wonder if you have given it much thought. Somebody has to pay for this application; costs have to be recovered somewhere.

Personally I thought Google's approach to ad insertion was particularly conservative and careful. It is very unobtrusive, and it looks to me like they actually took care NOT to spoil the user experience - I do not consider a differentiation of pin icon to be something that utterly destroys the user experience, and I really doubt that it would pan out that way if you just presented the UI to people and asked them to rank it. I suspect you'd find no significant difference between the two.

I don't think it is realistic of us to expect companies like Google (or Apple) to be in the free software business; there has to be a revenue stream somewhere, otherwise all those geeks running around Mountain View, Irvine, and who knows where else will find themselves out of work pretty soon. Right now, advertising is the biggest revenue stream Google has. Cost recovery via subtle ad insertion isn't so criminal if you ask me. I don't like it any more than the next guy, but I would like having to pay a monthly fee to use Google Maps even less.

No contract with a company of that size is just words. Thanks for the link though - not that I'll read it.

Ok... I'll read it.

First line: "Google is a business." Says it all really.

You seem overly dismissive. I'm not about to defend techno's knee-jerk reaction or even suggest that he's correctI don't think he/she is. I was just offering some insight to the discussion at hand, and I'll also point out, now, that techno didn't use the word 'contract'.

The document you've just fussed over is just a general set of guidelines describing how Google strives to do business. It certainly is not a contract. It is more of a philosophy, thus the title, "Our Philosophy." Still, it would lend validity to a complaint against Google for 'doing evil'. The disagreement I have with techno in this case is simply that they're not doing evil.

I was just offering some light-hearted background story.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

I am surprised that you think a simple icon differentiation in the map 'ruins' the map view 'experience'. How costly is that little icon, really? How does it substantively alter your 'experience' of the UI? Seems like much ado about nothing to me, and I am a UI designer.

So am I. I think it's too much, and the one in Map View is not where you'd expect to see an ad.

So am I. I think it's too much, and the one in Map View is not where you'd expect to see an ad.

I tried it on my phone and before you declare you indignation I would suggest you try it as well. I think to be clear, images supplied with the article are a bit misleading. The red map pin next to the store front icon is some other store. The ad icons are not in addition to the map pin but instead of. No logo and the name label does not pop up by default either. The user clicked on it.

So am I. I think it's too much, and the one in Map View is not where you'd expect to see an ad.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you are responding to the fact that there is an ad insertion, not the UI itself. If you presented this design to someone and did not tell them the different icon is an ad, or even if you simply told them it means "someone paid to have this link inserted in our mapping database and presented to you", I doubt it would make much difference at all in their evaluation of the UI. It is so minimal and trivial that it falls into the level of absurdity to suggest that it 'ruins' the experience.

I think what ruins the experience for you is the fact that you think you should not have to be exposed to advertisements using maps (even though they aren't really ads, they are just sponsored links), and that bias causes you to be angry about what you perceive to be an unwarranted intrusion into your use of the application. That's fine, but that is not a user experience issue, it is just your own personal bias.

There's really no reason to get all up in arms about this. Google has been putting ads in their other services for years, so why should this one be any different? We've known this sort of things was going to happen for years as cell phones became more advanced. Businesses want to be known, especially if they know you're within a few miles.

They're not intrusive in the least. They're like Digg's ads - they're slipstreamed into the data in a way so that they're not annoying to the eye, and are clearly marked.

If you don't want ads in your Maps application, launch your own satilite into space and start taking pictures of the globe, or license those images yourself.

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

Probably because Vonage just makes phone calls, but doesn't try to take over the entire telephony user experience on the iPhone.

Apple is unique in that it generally makes money without annoying us to death. Most companies (and especially most websites) have business strategies based around annoying ads. I've heard the ZuneHD gives you a little ad every single time you open an application.

It's like Hulu vs. iTunes. I would personally much rather pay a couple bucks to watch an HD TV show without commercials. That's the same reason I own a TiVo: so I can avoid polluting my life with time-wasting insults.

Sadly, I think I'm in the minority on this. Most people seem to say, "I don't mind the ads as long as I get free stuff." Hopefully Apple sticks to their philosophical base and replaces the newly-annoying Google maps with PlaceBase [that's the map company they recently bought]. I'd happily pay more for my iPhone so I don't have to hear about Kohls' new sale.

I'd happily pay more for my iPhone so I don't have to hear about Kohls' new sale.

What is it about this that people don't understand. It is a simple nondescript icon. Takes up no more space and a regular map pin, very insignificant. You have to click on it to see the ad and it is targeted so you probably are interested in it since you searched on the keyword. Jees!

We've known this for a long time, so this should be not be surprising to anyone. Google's very existence and business model is centered around throwing as many ads as they can into our faces. The more they succeed, the more money they make. These ads are in the form of banners, pop-up windows, filtered searches, and now points of interest on Maps.

I can't wait for Google VoIP to begin interjecting audio ads into my phone calls. "Hi Mom.......Hello, this is Google reminding you that you can save money by shopping at.......".

I am surprised that you think a simple icon differentiation in the map 'ruins' the map view 'experience'. How costly is that little icon, really? How does it substantively alter your 'experience' of the UI? Seems like much ado about nothing to me, and I am a UI designer....

I'm not the OP you are responding to but to me this does "ruin" the map experience also.

The point is that one is searching for something on a map, and the results should be what you searched for, not what you searched for plus some ads. In the web browsing experience, you would get what you searched for, with some ads over to one side. The iPhone is too small for that so you get ads right in the middle of the screen.

Aside from the fact that the user is not getting what they searched for, the extra material interferes with the experience of the search.

On top of that, this is just one ad we are talking about. If this becomes popular, then searching on any Google map will bring up dozens and dozens of results only marginally (if at all), connected to your search. How easy will the search be when there are dozens of ads filling up that tiny map?

Even if the ads are only thrown up when you are looking for a commercial entity like a restaurant or a store, if a dozen stores are paying Google money to be mentioned in those searches and there is only room for a dozen links on the screen, who's to say those who haven't paid Google will even show up on the search?

It's the tiny end of a giant wedge or slippery slope or whatever.

It's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not "good." What we need is another company to provide maps for the iPhone that doesn't need to monetize the map.
Apple Maps anyone?

We've known this for a long time, so this should be not be surprising to anyone. Google's very existence and business model is centered around throwing as many ads as they can into our faces. The more they succeed, the more money they make. These ads are in the form of banners, pop-up windows, filtered searches, and now points of interest on Maps.

Google = Search. Search uses servers, programming and bandwidth. Servers, programming and bandwidth costs money. Google places a few very unobtrusive targeted ads to make money and you people go off on a tirade yet you sit through hundreds of really obnoxious TV commercials every day without getting your panties in a bunch. What's up?

Google = Search. Search uses servers, programming and bandwidth. Servers, programming and bandwidth costs money. Google places a few very unobtrusive targeted ads to make money and you people go off on a tirade yet you sit through hundreds of really obnoxious TV commercials every day without getting your panties in a bunch. What's up?

What is it about this that people don't understand. It is a simple nondescript icon. Takes up no more space and a regular map pin, very insignificant. You have to click on it to see the ad and it is targeted so you probably are interested in it since you searched on the keyword. Jees!

Well good for you: you're someone who doesn't mind ads. You're in the majority. The world is heading your direction.

Clearly, though, a number of us still value the uncluttered purity that Apple usually gives us.

I've pulled up the new Google Maps ads on my phone, and they are annoying. Not as bad as a big Flash ad bouncing all over my computer screen, but still annoying. It breaks my concentration; makes a small part of my brain say, "OK, so the white ones on the list are relevant, and I have to ignore that yellow one," or, "I should look at the red push-pins, not the yellow icons." And the italicized text, "HEY, THERE'S A SALE!!!" just makes me unhappy, like finding a bug in my soup.

I'm not the OP you are responding to but to me this does "ruin" the map experience also.

The point is that one is searching for something on a map, and the results should be what you searched for, not what you searched for plus some ads. In the web browsing experience, you would get what you searched for, with some ads over to one side. The iPhone is too small for that so you get ads right in the middle of the screen.

Aside from the fact that the user is not getting what they searched for, the extra material interferes with the experience of the search.

On top of that, this is just one ad we are talking about. If this becomes popular, then searching on any Google map will bring up dozens and dozens of results only marginally (if at all), connected to your search. How easy will the search be when there are dozens of ads filling up that tiny map?

Even if the ads are only thrown up when you are looking for a commercial entity like a restaurant or a store, if a dozen stores are paying Google money to be mentioned in those searches and there is only room for a dozen links on the screen, who's to say those who haven't paid Google will even show up on the search?

It's the tiny end of a giant wedge or slippery slope or whatever.

It's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not "good." What we need is another company to provide maps for the iPhone that doesn't need to monetize the map.
Apple Maps anyone?

This is all completely wrong. It is TARGETED!!!! You are getting what you searched for. Google never put dozens of ads on a page and it they did people would quit using them for search. You people are just freaking out for no reason. Think about it for a second then go see what it looks like in action on a an iPhone. The sky is not falling.

This is all completely wrong. It is TARGETED!!!! You are getting what you searched for. Google never put dozens of ads on a page and it they did people would quit using them for search. You people are just freaking out for no reason. Think about it for a second then go see what it looks like in action on a an iPhone. The sky is not falling.

You must be joking. Let me ask you one question? What search engine do you use for that austere clarity?

Until today, I used Google Maps on my iPhone.

I'm not telling you you're wrong, just that you like different things than I do. My only point is that some people really value the way Apple generally operates without relying on ad revenue. Believe me, if Google had an ad-free version of their website that cost a couple bucks a month, I'd subscribe!